Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman had a bit of Jewish triumphalism published recently in the NY Times (”The Triumphant Decline of the WASP“). Now that the WASPs have gone down to zero seats on the Supreme Court and there’s a Black president, it’s time to congratulate the WASPs for holding onto their principles even though their principles caused their demise: WASPs as the first and only proposition ethnic group.

Satisfaction with our national progress [by having 3 Jews on the Supreme Court and no WASPs] should not make us forget its authors: the very Protestant elite that founded and long dominated our nation’s institutions of higher education and government, including the Supreme Court. Unlike almost every other dominant ethnic, racial or religious group in world history, white Protestants have ceded their socioeconomic power by hewing voluntarily to the values of merit and inclusion, values now shared broadly by Americans of different backgrounds. The decline of the Protestant elite is actually its greatest triumph.

I would go beyond Feldman by saying that no other elite has ever voluntarily allowed itself to be eclipsed because of steadfast adherence to principle. Feldman is doubtless quite happy because he realizes that the new elite will not allow itself to be eclipsed by adherence to principle.

Indeed, Kagan’s arrival on the Supreme Court is a sort of official coming out party for the new elite. It’s been there for quite some time, but the Kagan nomination is an in-your-face-demonstration of the power of Jewish ethnic networking at the highest levels of government. And the first thing one notices is that the new elite has no compunctions about nominating someone for the Supreme Court even though she has no real qualifications. So much for the principles of merit and inclusion: Inclusion does not apply to WASPs now that they have been deposed. And the principle of merit can now be safely discarded in favor of ethnic networking. As I noted previously,

This is a favorite aspect of contemporary Jewish self-conception — the idea that Jews replaced WASPs because they are smarter and work harder. But this leads to the ultimate irony: Kagan is remarkably unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice in terms of the usual standards: judicial experience, academic publications, or even courtroom experience. Rather, all the evidence is that Kagan owes her impending confirmation to her Jewish ethnic connections (see also here).

The same goes for Jewish over-representation in elite academic institutions–far higher than can be explained by higher Jewish IQ. Does anyone seriously think that Jewish domination of Hollywood and the so much of the other mainstream media (see, e.g., Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article) is about merit rather than ethnic networking and solidarity? And then there’s the addiction of the new elite to affirmative action for non-Whites.

Whatever else one can say about the new elite, it certainly does not believe in merit. The only common denominator is that Whites of European extraction are being systematically excluded and displaced to the point that they are now underrepresented in all the important areas of the elite compared to their percentage of the population. The new elite distinguishes itself mainly by its hostility to the traditional people and culture of those they displaced. It is an elite that cannot say its name. Indeed the ADL was all over Pat Buchanan for mentioning that Kagan is Jewish and that Jews would be one-third of the Supreme Court.

This lack of principle at the foundation of the new elite extends to every area of the culture: The financial elite that produced the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression by allowing wholesale fraud in the mortgage market; the academic elite that systematically excludes ideas related to the legitimacy and reasonableness of White ethnic interests; the media elite that routinely provides invidious depictions of Whites and especially Whites with a sense of White identity and ethnic interests; the political elite that fails to perform the most basic function of government: protecting the people and culture from invasion and displacement; the organized Jewish community with its influence spread throughout the government, routinely supporting an expansive ethnonationalism in Israel while condemning ethnonationalism in White Americans.

This lack of principle will certainly extend to Elena Kagan once she accedes to the Supreme Court. Her academic publishing record, meager as it is, does indicate someone who does not believe in principles such as free speech...MORE...LINK-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

I’ve noted this here before, but I’ll say it again. It seems to me the concept that average Whites “deserve” to be dispossessed and displaced rests primarily on two historical premises: the unprecedented evil of colonialism and the ultimate evil of Nazism. And as I also pointed out before, Nazism was merely the antithesis of Jewish Bolshevism, and European colonialism was not carried out by average Whites, but rather mostly by White elites manipulating and exploiting the masses for their own glory, wealth and vanity to no real gain to their countries as a whole.

So the supposedly “intellectual” White liberal academic, cultural, and media elite are waging a war against the White masses based on a fabricated, largely Leftist and Jewish-constructed fraudulent telling of history that leaves out the evil of Leftism and political Jewry, as evidenced by mass murderous Jewish Bolshevism, and that leaves out elitist White treachery.

Far from being benign do-gooders trying to serve people of color, or naïve and blinkered, in most cases, those elites who are perpetuating the false narrative are shrewd and ruthless operators serving their own selfish interests -- bounders engaged in careerism and personal advancement.

They know the truth (just as most of them know the truth about Jewish aggression, abuses and tyranny in the Middle East), but for a certain element of treacherous opportunists and money-grubbers, “truth” is whatever they and their fellow elites have collectively agreed to pretend to believe in service of their own interests.

Thus, not only treacherous Jews, but their elitest allies and confederates throughout society are the enemy (although the best way to identify them remains their close association with treacherous Jewish causes like Zionism, cultural Marxism, authoritarian government and Wall Street fraud).

...In 2009, Zbigniew Brzezinski published an article based on a speech he delivered to the London-based Chatham House in their academic journal, International Affairs. Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Relations, is the British counterpart to the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, both of which were founded in 1921 as “Sister Institutes” to coordinate Anglo-American foreign policy. His article, “Major foreign policy challenges for the next US President,” aptly analyzes the major geopolitical challenges for the Obama administration in leading the global hegemonic state at this critical juncture. Brzezinski refers to the ‘global political awakening’ as “a truly transformative event on the global scene,” since:

For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today around the world. The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination.[2]

Brzezinski posits that the ‘global political awakening’ is one of the most dramatic and significant developments in geopolitics that has ever occurred, and it “is apparent in radically different forms from Iraq to Indonesia, from Bolivia to Tibet.” As the Economist explained, “Though America has focused on its notion of what people want (democracy and the wealth created by free trade and open markets), Brzezinski points in a different direction: It's about dignity.” Further, argues Brzezinski, “The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening.”[3]

In 2005, Brzezinski wrote an essay for The American Interest entitled, “The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign,” in which he explains the geopolitical landscape that America and the world find themselves in. He wrote that, “For most states, sovereignty now verges on being a legal fiction,” and he critically assessed the foreign policy objectives and rhetoric of the Bush administration. Brzezinski has been an ardent critic of the “war on terror” and the rhetoric inherent in it, namely that of the demonization of Islam and Muslim people, which constitute one of the fastest growing populations and the fastest growing religion in the world. Brzezinski fears the compound negative affects this can have on American foreign policy and the objectives and aspirations of global power. He writes:

America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality: that the world's population is experiencing a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power. The need to respond to that massive phenomenon poses to the uniquely sovereign America an historic dilemma: What should be the central definition of America's global role?[4]

Brzezinski explains that formulating a foreign policy based off of one single event – the September 11th terror attacks – has both legitimized illegal measures (torture, suspension of habeas corpus, etc) and has launched and pacified citizens to accepting the “global war on terror,” a war without end. The rhetoric and emotions central to this global foreign policy created a wave of patriotism and feelings of redemption and revenge. Thus, Brzezinski explains:

There was no need to be more precise as to who the terrorists actually were, where they came from, or what historical motives, religious passions or political grievances had focused their hatred on America. Terrorism thus replaced Soviet nuclear weapons as the principal threat, and terrorists (potentially omnipresent and generally identified as Muslims) replaced communists as the ubiquitous menace.[5]

Brzezinski explains that this foreign policy, which has inflamed anti-Americanism around the world, specifically in the Muslim world, which was the principle target population of ‘terrorist’ rhetoric, has in fact further inflamed the ‘global political awakening’...

Brzezinski thus posits that to address this new global “challenge” to entrenched powers, particularly nation-states that cannot sufficiently address the increasingly non-pliant populations and populist demands, what is required, is “increasingly supranational cooperation, actively promoted by the United States.” In other words, Brzezinski favours an increased and expanded ‘internationalization’, not surprising considering he laid the intellectual foundations of the Trilateral Commission. He explains that “Democracy per se is not an enduring solution,” as it could be overtaken by “radically resentful populism.” This is truly a new global reality:

Politically awakened mankind craves political dignity, which democracy can enhance, but political dignity also encompasses ethnic or national self-determination, religious self-definition, and human and social rights, all in a world now acutely aware of economic, racial and ethnic inequities. The quest for political dignity, especially through national self-determination and social transformation, is part of the pulse of self-assertion by the world's underprivileged.[10]

Thus, writes Brzezinski, “An effective response can only come from a self-confident America genuinely committed to a new vision of global solidarity.” The idea is that to address the grievances caused by globalization and global power structures, the world and America must expand and institutionalize the process of globalization, not simply in the economic sphere, but in the social and political as well. It is a flawed logic, to say the least, that the answer to this problem is to enhance and strengthen the systemic problems. One cannot put out a fire by adding fuel.

Brzezinski even wrote that, “Let it be said right away that supranationality should not be confused with world government. Even if it were desirable, mankind is not remotely ready for world government, and the American people certainly do not want it.” Instead, Brzezinski argues, America must be central in constructing a system of global governance, “in shaping a world that is defined less by the fiction of state sovereignty and more by the reality of expanding and politically regulated interdependence.”[11] In other words, not ‘global government’ but ‘global governance’, which is simply a rhetorical ploy, as ‘global governance’ – no matter how overlapping, sporadic and desultory it presents itself, is in fact a key step and necessary transition in the moves toward an actual global government...

Among nation-states, the most dominant are the western powers, particularly the United States, which sits atop the global hierarchy of nations as the global hegemon (empire). American foreign policy was provided with the imperial impetus by an inter-locking network of international think tanks, which bring together the top political, banking, industrial, academic, media, military and intelligence figures to formulate coordinated policies.

The most notable of these institutions that socialize elites across national borders and provide the rationale and impetus for empire are an inter-locking network of international think tanks. In 1921, British and American elite academics got together with major international banking interests to form two “sister institutes” called the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London, now known as Chatham House, and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. Subsequent related think tanks were created in Canada, such as the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, now known as the Canadian International Council (CIC), and other affiliated think tanks in South Africa, India, Australia, and more recently in the European Union with the formation of the European Council on Foreign Relations.[13]

Following World War I, these powers sought to reshape the world order in their designs, with Woodrow Wilson proclaiming a right to “national self determination” which shaped the formation of nation-states throughout the Middle East, which until the war was dominated by the Ottoman Empire. Thus, proclaiming a right to “self-determination” for people everywhere became, in fact, a means of constructing nation-state power structures which the western nations became not only instrumental in building, but in exerting hegemony over. To control people, one must construct institutions of control. Nations like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Kuwait, etc., did not exist prior to World War I.

Elites have always sought to control populations and individuals for their own power desires. It does not matter whether the political system is that of fascism, communism, socialism or democracy: elites seek power and control and are inherent in each system of governance. In 1928, Edward Bernays, nephew of the father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud, wrote one of his most influential works entitled “Propaganda.” Bernays also wrote the book on “Public Relations,” and is known as the “father of public relations,” and few outside of that area know of Bernays; however, his effect on elites and social control has been profound and wide-ranging.

Bernays led the propaganda effort behind the 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala, framing it as a “liberation from Communism” when in fact it was the imposition of a decades-long dictatorship to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company, who had hired Bernays to manage the media campaign against the democratic socialist government of Guatemala. Bernays also found a fan and student in Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, who took many of his ideas from Bernays’ writings. Among one of Bernays’ more infamous projects was the popularizing of smoking for American women, as he hired beautiful women to walk up and down Madison Avenue while smoking cigarettes, giving women the idea that smoking is synonymous with beauty.

In his 1928 book, “Propaganda,” Bernays wrote that, “If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it.” Further:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society... Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.[14]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, an up-and-coming academic, joined the Council on Foreign Relations in the early 1960s. In 1970, Brzezinski, who had attended a few Bilderberg meetings, wrote a book entitled, “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era,” in which he analyzed the impact of the ‘Revolution in Technology and Electronics,’ thus, the ‘technetronic era.’ Brzezinski defines the ‘technetronic society’ as, “a society that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics – particularly in the arena of computers and communications. The industrial process is no longer the principal determinant of social change, altering the mores, the social structure, and the values of society.”[17]

Brzezinski, expanding upon notions of social control, such as those propagated by Edward Bernays, wrote that, “Human conduct, some argue, can be predetermined and subjected to deliberate control,” and he quoted an “experimenter in intelligence control” who asserted that, “I foresee the time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behaviour and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain.”[18]

Brzezinski, in a telling exposé of his astute powers of observation and ability to identify major global trends, wrote that we are “witnessing the emergence of transnational elites” who are “composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional than national.” Further, writes Brzezinski, “it is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook.” However, warns Brzezinski, this increasing internationalization of elites “could create a dangerous gap between them and the politically activated masses, whose ‘nativism’ – exploited by more nationalist political leaders – could work against the ‘cosmopolitan’ elites.”[19] Brzezinski also wrote about “the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society,” in the “technetronic revolution;” explaining:

Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.[20]

...This new reality in the world, coupled with the fact that the world’s population has never been so vast, presents a challenge to elites seeking to dominate people all over the world who are aware and awakened to the realities of social inequality, war, poverty, exploitation, disrespect, imperialism and domination. This directly implies that these populations will be significantly more challenging to control: economically, politically, socially, psychologically and spiritually. Thus, from the point of view of the global oligarchy, the only method of imposing order and control – on this unique and historical human condition – is through the organized chaos of economic crises, war, and the rapid expansion and institutionalization of a global scientific dictatorship. Our hope is their fear; and our greatest fear is their only hope.

As Charles Dickens once wrote, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” That has never been so true as it is today....MORE...LINK

As Russian imperial residences go, Livadia is a rather small palace, even modest. Czar Nicholas II had this pretty palace of white limestone built as a family vacation residence in the sunny Crimea...

Photos show the imperial family grouped together at Livadia much as they must have appeared when they were later murdered in 1918 by Communist gunmen in a dingy basement in the Urals. One mourns this family so filled with deep love for one another, and their tragic end...

On Livadia’s main floor, one feels no melancholy, only anger. There, in February, 1945, US President Franklin Roosevelt, Britain’s Winston Churchill, and Soviet ruler Josef Stalin met to decide postwar Europe’s future.

In modern history’s greatest betrayal, the Allied war leaders handed half of Europe to Soviet rule, betraying tens of millions of its people to the gulag, dictatorship, and confiscation of all their property.

The late KGB general Pavel Sudoplatov, who led the team that killed Trotsky and later observed Yalta, aptly calls the pact in his memoirs, "as cynical as the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939" that carved up parts of Eastern Europe between Germany and the USSR. But in that case, Hitler and Stalin made a two-sided deal, restoring lands their nations had lost during and after World War I.

Yalta was a shameful, one-sided sellout of half the European continent. The left-leaning, likely senile Roosevelt kept hailing Stalin, who had murdered over 20 million people, "our Uncle Joe."

Ironically, last week, Georgia’s pro-western government just blew up a towering statue of Stalin in his birthplace of Gori, outraging many Georgians and Russians.

The heavy machinery used by Stalin to industrialize the USSR and build its arms factories was largely bought from the United States. The Soviet Union confiscated grains from its farmers to finance industrialization, leaving millions of them to starve. Mao Zedong would later pay for China’s industrialization in the same merciless manner during the 1950’s.

It has generally been forgotten that Stalin’s concentration camps and mass murder peaked in the mid-1930’s, at least five years before Hitler began mass murder. Yet America rushed to the Soviet Union’s aid when it was attacked by Germany, supplying huge amounts of material aid, arms, fuel and cash.

Amazingly, the naïve Roosevelt and the American delegation actually stayed at the Livadia Palace. The NKVD, the Soviet secret police, bugged every nook and cranny at Livadia, and heard everything that was said by the president and his aides...

How could warlords Roosevelt and Churchill been so foolish and cowardly? Stalin had 12 million soldiers moving into Eastern Europe. Stalin’s might intimidated Roosevelt and Churchill, causing them to replace one totalitarian dictator, Adolf Hitler, by appeasing an even more dangerous one, Stalin.

The Soviet Union had done the lion’s share of fighting in Europe, destroying 75% of all German land and air forces, and naturally expected the lion’s share of the spoils. When the Americans, British and Canadians landed at Normandy, facing them was the ghost of the once invincible Wehrmacht, fatally crippled by shortages of fuel, munitions, and armor, and without any air cover. It was amazing the Germans held out as long as they did on the Western Front

After German forces surrendered, US general George Patton was ready to turn his famed 3rd Army against the Russians in Eastern Europe. The US had the atomic bomb, Russia did not. But the US and bankrupt Britain decided to buy off Stalin. Eastern Europe paid the terrible price. Patton was relieved and subsequently killed in a still mysterious road accident.

In one of Stalin’s sinister, green-painted villas on the Russia coast near Sochi, , I sat at his desk, imagining how after Yalta his yellow eyes must have glinted with malice and triumph as he puffed his pipe...MORE...LINK

The Anti-Defamation League and the Government of Mexico have filed separate lawsuits against the State of Arizona over it's new immigration law which will take affect July 29. Lawyers representing Mexico filled a brief supporting the law suit which was brought of by the ACLU which they are taking to Federal Court claiming that the law violates the US Constitution. The document put out by the Government of Mexico states that the law threatens "the human and civil rights of its citizens when they are present in Arizona." Mexican President Felipe Calderon has condemned the bill stating it "opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement."

While the Government of Mexico is outraged about Arizona its own immigration laws are far harsher than Arizona's. While Arizona's calls for the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants under Mexican Law entering the country illegally is punishable by up to two years in prison and an attempted re-entry by up to 10 years. Those who violate their visas can be sentenced to up to six years and the government of Mexico has the authority to arrest foreigners whom it deems as a threat to its national and economic interest.

Several Congressman have taken up Mexico's Government on its blatant hypocrisy. Referring to Mexico's President's opposition of the Arizona Bill Rep. Steve King of Iowa said "why would Mr. Calderon have any objections to an Arizona law that is less draconian than his own, one he has pledged to enforce?" Rep. Ted Poe of Texas stated in a speech on the House Floor titled "Is President Calderon Hypocritical" that "Mexico has long been doing the job of illegal alien deportation, and it seems to me it's hypocritical of Mexico and President Calderon to criticize the United States or Arizona for enforcing our illegal immigration laws. They are far less severe than Mexico's illegal immigration laws. So when President Calderon comes here tomorrow to complain about America and America's illegal immigration policy, perhaps Calderon would prefer America adopt Mexico's immigration policies."

While the Nation of Israel has not interfered with Arizona immigration stance many of major organization that represent Israel's interest in the United States such as the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, and Simon Wiesenthal Center have also joined Mexico in denouncing the bill. The ADL has gone as far to file a lawsuit against Arizona.

In a joint statement ADL Arizona's regional chair Miriam Weisman and regional director Bill Straus stated "rather than making Arizona more secure, we believe this law will have the opposite effect. Fear of heightened law enforcement scrutiny about immigration status will deter victims and witnesses from coming forward and cooperating with the police, making it significantly more difficult for police to do their jobs. We understand that secure borders are a legitimate concern, but SB 1070 does not effectively address that concern. Rather, this bill drives a wedge between the Latino community - whose members are frequent targets of bias-motivated violence - and those local law enforcement agencies entrusted with protecting them. The bill is a manifestation of anger and frustration, fueled by exaggerated fears of violence and passed against a backdrop of increasing xenophobia. It is ill-conceived, misguided, and should not be implemented.

Much like Mexico Israel also has taken a harsh stance in regards to illegal immigration. In an article titled "Focus U.S.A. / Reminders of Israel in the Arizona immigration debate" in the Israeli Newspaper Haaretz Natasha Mozgovaya states that "As the debate stirred by the new Arizona immigration law remains heated, it's hard for those who remember the years of the "hunt" for foreign workers at the Old Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv not to see the similarity." She points out that "In the U.S., some representatives of the Jewish community have plunged vigorously into the current debate." She mentions that The Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman told Haaretz: "Well, in terms of size and dimension Israel is nowhere near the U.S." She responds that In the United States, there are about 11 million illegal immigrants. Some communities are much better organized than the foreign workers in Israel, and the immigration policy based upon the law of return doesn't provide Israel much space or willingness to absorb them legally."

On a similar note Assaf Oron points out in an article titled "Israel has been ‘Arizona' all along" that "In Israel, laws like the Arizona one - and worse - have been in effect ever since independence. No, I'm not talking about the Occupation, but inside Israel proper. Any resident sixteen years of age or older must at all times carry an Identity card, and present it upon demand to a senior police officer, head of Municipal or Regional Authority, or a policeman or member of the Armed forces on duty. And guess against which ethnic group this requirement is enforced."...MORE...LINK

This past week various news events once again made it abundantly clear that our foreign policy is an abject failure. Unfortunately, in spite of this, the administration is determined to stay on this destructive course, despite any past promises to change it. For Afghanistan especially, if ever there was an opportunity to admit shortcomings and change strategies along with leaders, this past week was it.

There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture. I remain highly skeptical that, as foreign occupiers, we can ever impose Western-style democracy on another country. Our troops have debilitating restrictions on defending themselves against enemies, which are so often indistinguishable from civilians. They also face dire setbacks in winning hearts and minds when innocents are mistakenly harmed, which happens all the time. We can never make friends this way; the tactic never works.

This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods.

Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control. This is largely because fiscal accountability in military budgeting is seen, by many, as weak on defense. This is absolutely wrong and a dangerous way to think. It is certainly possible for the military to waste money, or to spend money counterproductively, and indeed it has. But out of political correctness, the military has been getting blank checks from the administrations and Congress for far too long.

It is important to defend our soil, but let us defend our own soil instead of defending Europe’s soil. Our willingness to defend Europe enables their lavish social spending at our expense, while they criticize our model of capitalism. It is time they allocated the money for their own defense. The same goes for Korea, Japan, and other countries like Egypt and Israel.

It is also important that while our troops are in combat, our soldiers have what they need to do the best they can, even if we disagree with why they are there. It is an embarrassment that some soldiers and families have had to buy body armor at their own expense when billions are awarded to politically well-connected defense contractors for weapon systems that don’t work, are over-budget, and are past deadline. This is the kind of waste that needs to end. I firmly believe that there is enough waste in the military budget that we can both save money overall and at the same time be safer.

Of course, the obvious way to save money and be safer is to stop meddling in the affairs of foreign countries and just bring our troops home. This will happen eventually if our empire, like every other fallen empire, insists on spending itself into collapse. If we want to avoid this, we must look into ways to bring our costs under control. Military budgets must be on the chopping block along with everything else.

The global financial crisis is playing out like a slow-moving, highly predicable stage play. In the current scene, Western governments are caught between the demands of entitled welfare beneficiaries and the anxiety of bondholders who fear they will be stuck with the bill. As the crisis reaches an apex, prime ministers and presidents are forced into a Sophie's choice between social unrest and bankruptcy. But with the "Club Med" economies set to fall like dominoes, the US Treasury market is not yet acting the role we would have anticipated.

Our argument has always been that the US benefits from its reserve-currency status, allowing it to accumulate unsustainable debts for an unusually long period without the immediate repercussions of inflation or higher borrowing costs. But this false sense of security may be setting us up for a truly monumental crash.

There is fresh evidence that time is running out for the dollar-centric global monetary order. In fact, central banks outside the US are already making swift and discrete preparation for a post-dollar era.

To begin, the People's Bank of China has just this week decided to permit a wider trading range between the yuan and the dollar. This is the first step toward ending the infernal yuan-dollar peg. While the impetus behind this abrupt change remains a mystery, I have a sneaking suspicion that, as my colleague Neeraj Chaudhary explained in his commentary last week, the nationwide labor strikes were a prime motivator.

In response to the 2008 credit crunch, the Fed printed so many dollars that the People's Bank of China was forced to drive Chinese inflation into double digits to maintain the peg. The pain has fallen on China's workers, who have seen their wages stagnate while prices for everything from milk to apartments have skyrocketed. This week's move indicates that, regardless of its own policy motives, the Communist Party can no longer afford to keep pace with the dollar's devaluation. The result will be a shift in wealth from America to China, which may trigger a long-anticipated run on the dollar, while creating investment opportunities in China.

Just days before China's announcement, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev rattled his monetary sabre by telling the press of his intention to lead the world toward a new monetary order based on a broad basket of currencies. Giving strength to his claim, the Central Bank of Russia announced that it would be adding Canadian and Australian dollars to its reserves for the first time. Analysts suggest that the IMF may follow suit. While Russia floats in the limbo between hopeless kleptocracy and emerging economy, it does possess vast natural resources and a toe-hold in both Europe and Asia. In other words, it will be a strategically important partner for China as it tries to cast off dollar hegemony.

Speaking of Europe, the major powers there are moving toward a post-dollar world by rejecting President Obama's calls to jump on America's debt grenade. The prescriptions coming from Washington translate loosely to: our airship is on fire, so why don't you light a candle under yours so that we may crash and burn together. Given that dollar strength is largely seen as a function of euro weakness (as Andrew Schiff discussed in our most recent newsletter, debt troubles in the eurozone's fringe economies have created a distorted confidence in the greenback. However, as you might imagine, Europe has higher priorities than being America's fall guy. Led by an ever-bolder Germany, the European states are wisely choosing not to throw themselves on our funeral pyre, but to wisely clean house in anticipation of China's rise.

In another ominous sign for the dollar, the Financial Times reported Wednesday that after two decades as net sellers of gold, foreign central banks have now become net buyers. What's more, more than half of central bank officials surveyed by UBS didn't think the dollar would be the world's reserve in 2035. Among the predicted replacements were Asian currencies and the euro, but - by far - the favorite was gold. This is supported by Monday's revelation by the Saudi central bank that it had covertly doubled its gold reserves, just about a year after China made a similar admission. There is no reason to assume these are isolated incidents, or that the covert trade of dollars for gold doesn't continue. To the contrary, this is compelling evidence that foreign governments are outwardly supporting the status quo while quietly preparing for the dollar's almost-inevitable devaluation. What people like Paul Krugman believe to be a return to medieval economics may, in fact, be the wave of the future.

In peacetime, hardened troops will likely tolerate a blowhard general for an extended period; but when the artillery opens up with live ordnance, an ineffectual leader risks rapid demotion. The newspapers are now riddled with hints that foreign governments have lost faith in Washington and the dollar reserve system. It seems to me only natural that after a century of war, inflation, and socialism, the next hundred years would belong to those people who hold the timeless values of hard money and fiscal prudence. Unfortunately, our policymakers are not those people...LINK

But with yesterday’s Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision (No. 08-1498, also 09-89) of the Supreme Court, coupled with last week’s Arar v. Ashcroft denial of certiorari (No. 09-923), the case for claiming that the U.S. is a fascist police-state just got a whole lot stronger.

First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”?

A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.

In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)

What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists a pro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state – even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases – then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.

A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.

A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by – it’s almost as tough to come up with as a definition of “pornography”.

The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right, “communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the Left. But that doesn’t help much.

For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his belonging to a particular faction or group – individuals do not have inherent worth, value or standing.

Now then! Having gotten that out of the way, where were we?

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: The Humanitarian Law Project was advising groups deemed “terrorists” on how to negotiate non-violently with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech constituted “aiding and abetting” a terrorist organization, as the Court determined that speech was “material support”. Therefore, the Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied “material support” to the terrorist organization.

The decision is being noted by the New York Times as a Freedom of Speech issue; other commentators seem to be viewing it in those terms as well.

My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about limiting free speech—it's about the state expanding it power to repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist...MORE...LINK--------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

The Left-Right, Statist-Corporatist monolith that is ringing the American people dry for its own self-serving, parasitical purposes will go to any lengths, no matter how murderous, to preserve its stranglehold over our country. Notice how the Obama administration has picked right up on the Bushcon War on Terror as a useful pretext for intimidating critics and dissidents, and suppressing free speech. Without the War on Terror constantly being thrown in our faces as the remedy to the supposedly biggest threat Americans face, none of these anti-Constitutional power grabs, nor their intellectual rationales (which are laying the bureaucratic groundwork for an ever-tightening noose around Americans' individual and civil rights) would be possible, or accepted.

No wonder Obama refuses to bring our troops home, and is instead escalating American wars in the Middle East. In fact, AntiWar.com today is reporting that Obama has essentially characterized those Americans who want him to fulfill his campaign promises to begin a final drawdown of U.S. troops in the Middle East as neurotics addicted to an unhealthy "obsession."

Speaking today in the wake of the G20 Summit, President Barack Obama criticized what he called “a lot of obsession” about ending the war in Afghanistan and withdrawing some 100,000 American troops from the nation.

Obama insisted that instead of considering if and how the war will ever come to some sort of end, his “focus right now is how do we make sure that what we’re doing there is successful, given the incredible sacrifices.”

The US initially invaded Afghanistan in late 2001. The number of troops in the nation has rising precipitously since President Obama took office in 2009, inheriting a war with 30,000 troops and turning it into a war with 100,000 troops.

Obama’s comments reflect those he made earlier this week, disavowing his pledge to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July of 2011. Now President Obama says that date is just the “beginning of a transition phase” and there is no particular timeline for leaving Afghanistan.

Just as the Bushcons who ran and were elected on campaign promises of shrinking the State and ending a corrupted America's proclivity for authroitarian social-engineering and "nation building" around the world went back on their promises and wound up growing the State and its global reach more than any regime since that of LBJ under the pretext of a global War on Terror, so too have the Obamunists pulled a bait and switch on the voters who swept them into office on a popular anti-war, anti-Empire backlash against the treacherous Bush administration. The Obama regime clearly never intended to pull America from the bog in the Middle East any more than the Bush regime ever intened to shrink Big Government.

The packaging may change, but the Statist-Corporatist-Unionist kleptocracy hell-bent on enriching and empowering itself by ringing America until final collapse remains the same.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Every serious movement needs a political prisoner whose persecution serves as a rallying point for them to gather around. Anti-White Leftists have Mumia Abu-Jamal, a Black victim of America’s institutional racism. His heroic act of slaughtering a White man then declaring “I shot the motherfucker, and I hope the motherfucker dies!” has inspired hordes of White potheads with blonde dreadlocks to clutch crudely written “Free Mumia” signs with their Cheetos™-encrusted fingers.

Our libertarian friends have finally found their own iconic martyr who truly epitomizes what libertarianism is all about. This man, this victim of America’s oppressive and tyrannical regime, is Rabbi Sholom Rubashkin. He has, perhaps more than any other man in the world, applied libertarian principles in his professional life, and is now being punished by America’s fascist goons.

Professor William Anderson of LewRockwell.com cries foul in his latest post, Free Sholom Rubashkin! He begins the article by delivering the bad news, that the man has been sentenced to 27 years in prison for, with scare quotes to de-legitimize the charges: “financial fraud”. He notes that “a lot of other people”, including friend of the site, mass murderess Janet Reno, and a bunch of Jews, are promoting leniency in his sentencing. But they lack the chutzpah that Mr. Anderson has, who demands that he be freed altogether.

All Mr. Rubashkin and his large clan of Hasidic Jews are guilty of is tens of millions of dollars of bank fraud, employing thousands of illegal immigrants in unthinkably squalid conditions, and obliterating the idyllic American town of Postville, Iowa. Years before the shit hit the fan, Stephen G. Bloom, a liberal journalist, described the Jewish crime family’s brutal destruction of the small town in his bestselling book, Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America. Postville’s descent from a safe and quaint White American hometown into a third world nightmare of financial scams, immigrant youth gangs, and Jewish chauvinism is the American story in a microcosm.

Rubashkin is a Hasidic Jew, his family having fled the U.S.S.R. after the Nazi invasion. They came to the United States and set up a butcher shop in New York City. After marriage in 1989, he and his new bride moved to Atlanta on shlihut to do kiruv (Jewish outreach). That same year, Rubashkin’s father started a kosher meat processing business in Postville to better enable Jews living outside of main Jewish centers to be able to obtain kosher meat.

Before Glatt kosher Agriprocessors began to expand its business, Jewish families could only purchase kosher meat from small butchers and specialty stores that catered to Jews. This made things more difficult for Jewish families who did not leave[sic] near these kinds of stores, but by expanding the amount of kosher meat for sale, the firm was able to bring kosher meat to regular grocery stores, which was not a small development for Jewish families.

Just when Mr. Rubashkin thought he had finally escaped the Nazis, he finds himself the victim of racism and anti-Semitism in what he thought was a sanctuary devoid of consequences for financial fraud and exploiting immigrant laborers…

Second, while it was clear that PETA’s charges were false, nonetheless the organization managed to put the kosher meat facility in the public eye, thus making it a bigger target for federal authorities [Emhasis added]. The next organization to go after Glatt kosher Agriprocessors was the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which had been unsuccessful in organizing the plant. Part of the problem was its workforce, and anyone who has been near a meat or chicken processing plant will know that a lot of immigrants from Mexico and Central America work there, as well as Asian immigrants [Emphasis added].

It’s hard to know exactly what Mr. Anderson is implying here, since his hysterically pro-libertarian ideology blinds him to the very possibility that employers might harm workers or be in the wrong. The man even believes that The Jungle was only socialist subterfuge. Having actually worked in deplorable conditions, among illegal immigrants, I can testify from my own experience that some unscrupulous employers are truly guilty of moral crimes befitting a 27 year prison sentence. But the actual humans and the fingers they lose are, for him, only abstractions ripe for the application of some tidy libertarian principles.

But it appears that he’s implying that PETA is anti-Semitic, that PETA deliberately targeted the Jewish factory. This claim isn’t entirely without merit, as animal-rights activism is incompatible with the barbaric slaughter techniques involved in kosher meat production…

Somehow, we share the Alternative Right with a man who sees enforcement of the most basic immigration laws as institutional racism by America’s anti-Semitic federal government. Somehow, we’re bedfellows with a man who cheers as our traditional families and communities are destroyed by greedy foreigners. Somehow, we’re uncomfortably close to a man who isn’t repulsed by the inhumane practices shown above...MORE...LINK-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

The Jewish rackets love a powerful, concentrated state, because it means having to buy off fewer people, and makes power easier to seize. Hence, Jewish Bolshevism constructed an all powerful, highly centralized state with massive power in the hands of a tiny minority. And notice how many Jewish ideologues are globalists and world government advocates — it’s because they are confident that if a world government were to be established, their collective and its agents could seize control of it [the way they've seized control of the neo-America leviathan and its world apparatus'] and hence, for all intents and purposes, rule the world.

Thus, the anti-statist libertarianism favored by LewRockwell.com generally runs counter to the Jewish supremacist agenda. However, there is a strong money-worshipping element in certain strains of libertarianism, hence there is sometimes overlap between these strains and Jewry’s agenda . The open borders position of certain libertarians is an example of where money-worshipping libertarianism dovetails with political Jewry and its globalist agenda.

This is one reason why I favor libertarian nationalism, which is pro free-enterprise, but opposes both open borders and globalism. Under libertarian nationalism, an anti-American, Zionist grifter like Rubashkin and his subversive, greed-driven war against American interests through the import and exploitation of undocumented workers, whose social welfare costs are then thrust onto the American taxpayer, would end up in jail long before his rackets bore their most poisonous fruits. -----Edison Carter [in article comments]: “Jews who are outsiders (pornographers, pimps, scammers) tend towards libertarianism.”

Until they go mainstream, at which point they become Zionists and globalists. Or until pornography, pimping and scamming becomes mainstream (as is happening in America), after which they still become Zionists and globalists. Organized Jewry won’t turn away any rich Jews so long as they have any kind of veneer of respectability.

Also, America’s founders and the successful components of its system were essentially libertarian, but socially and economically self-governed, primarily by Christianity. The fact that some bottom feeder have glommed onto libertarianism doesn’t discredit the libertarianism as practiced by the founders, does it?

That’s libertarian nationalism, which seeks to maintain certain standards of conduct and respectability by removing the corrupting influence of the “secular” state (which in today’s America is actually governed by a Jewish-supremacist and swindler ethic) and allow more wholesome religious institutions (primarily Christian) to re-assert their moral authority, at which point Jewish supremacism will return to its rightful pariah status, or emigrate to Israel, and the corrupt “Judeo-Christianity” as practiced by the detestable Bushcons will wither and die.

When The Washington Post's Dana Priest first revealed (in passing) back in January that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens targeted for assassination, she wrote that "as of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens." In April, both the Post and the NYT confirmed that the administration had specifically authorized the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. Today, The Washington Times' Eli Lake has an interview with Obama's top Terrorism adviser John Brennan in which Brennan strongly suggests that the number of U.S. citizens targeted for assassination could actually be "dozens":

Dozens of Americans have joined terrorist groups and are posing a threat to the United States and its interests abroad, the president's most senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security said Thursday. . . . "There are, in my mind, dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world, and they are very concerning to us," said John O. Brennan, deputy White House national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism. . . .

"If a person is a U.S. citizen, and he is on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq trying to attack our troops, he will face the full brunt of the U.S. military response," Mr. Brennan said. "If an American person or citizen is in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place, and they are trying to carry out attacks against U.S. interests, they also will face the full brunt of a U.S. response. And it can take many forms."

Nobody -- or at least not me -- disputes the right of the U.S. or any other country to kill someone on an actual battlefield during war without due process. That's just obvious, but that's not remotely what Brennan is talking about, and it's not remotely what this assassination program is about. Indeed, Brennan explicitly identified two indistinguishable groups of American citizens who "will face the full brunt of a U.S. response": (1) those "on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq"; and (2) those "in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place." In other words, the entire world is a "battlefield" -- countries where there is a war and countries where there isn't -- and the President's "battlefield" powers, which are unlimited, extend everywhere. That theory -- the whole world is a battlefield, even the U.S. -- was the core premise that spawned 8 years of Bush/Cheney radicalism, and it has been adopted in full by the Obama administration (indeed, it was that "whole-world-is-a-battlefield" theory which Elena Kagan explicitly endorsed during her confirmation hearing for Solicitor General).

Anyone who doubts that the Obama administration has adopted the core Terrorism policies of Bush/Cheney should listen to the concession -- or boast -- which Brennan himself made in his interview with Lake:

Mr. Brennan toward the end of the interview acknowledged that, despite some differences, there is considerable continuity between the counterterrorism policies of President Bush and President Obama.

"There has been a lot of continuity of effort here from the previous administration to this one," he said. "There are some important distinctions, but sometimes there is too much made of those distinctions. We are building upon some of the good foundational work that has been done."

I would really like never to hear again the complaint that comparing Bush and Obama's Terrorism and civil liberties policies is unfair, invalid or hyperbolic given that Obama's top Terrorism adviser himself touts that comparison. And that's anything but a surprise, given that Brennan was a Bush-era CIA official who defended many of the most controversial Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies...MORE...LINK

For John Catt, protest has never been about chaining himself to a railing or blocking a road in an act of civil disobedience. The 85-year-old peace campaigner's far milder form of dissent typically involves turning up at a demonstration with his daughter, Linda, taking out his sketch pad and drawing the scene.

However this, it seems, has been enough for police to classify Catt and his 50-year-old daughter "domestic extremists", put their personal information on a clandestine national database and record their political activities in minute detail.

Secret files have revealed how police have systematically documented their political activities, undermining official claims that only hardcore activists were placed under surveillance.

The National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) recorded their presence at more than 80 lawful demonstrations over four years, logging details such as their appearance, and slogans on their T-shirts.

Catt and his daughter, from Brighton, were aware that surveillance teams were often in the vicinity during their protests, but they had no idea how closely they were being monitored until their files were released under the Data Protection Act

Police said they did not legally have to disclose them, but did so to show there was "nothing sinister in what we hold".

The Catts, who have no criminal records, said they were "shocked and terrified" when they read their files. "Our activities were totally legitimate – we were not interested in non-violent direct action," said Linda . "My dad likes to sketch and I will hold a banner and shout a few things. But I'm careful about what I say."

They said the most worrying aspect was the seemingly banal information the surveillance officers had been logging, from observations about their demeanour and car number plates, to notes about their conversations with local reporters.

Amid the pages of detailed logs was an entry that noted how on the morning of 25 September 2005, John Catt was "clean shaven" when he attended a demonstration by Sussex Action for Peace. The Catts have been part of a long running campaign against an arms factory in Brighton, run by the American-owned EDO MBM Technology, over sales to Israel...MORE..LINK------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

This is a good demonstration of how leviathan Statist-Corporatism uses "the Jewish cause" (Israel) to validate its despicable authoritarianism and war profiteering; no one would buy or accept that an 85-year-old peace campaigner who airs his grievances against war by making sketches of anti-war rallies is any kind of threat to national security -- that is, until he can be inferred to be an "anti-Semite" with sinister, secret motives for opposing an Israel-connected enterprise. Then, suddenly, it's perfectly acceptable for Big Brother to subject him harassment, surveillance, intimidation, and perhaps someday, even imprisonment.

The Statist-Corporatist juggernaut goes through similar exercises in large ways and small against those who oppose its schemes by using its partnership with Israel and the Jewish people as an all purpose cover for the most scurrilous and contemptible behavior, eg the War on Terror, Middle Eastern wars, and domestic "Homeland Security" authoritarianism in the U.S. Is organized Jewry aware of how it's being used? I think some elements are, and some are not, but its self-indoctrinated hatred, paranoia, victimization, culture of greed and pathological need for control blind even most of the innocent elements of Jewry to their own role in the sinister partnership. However, it is heartening that pockets of Jews appear to be awakening to the pharisaic machinations of their (and our) overlords, and are refusing to allow those who would use and manipulate them to push their buttons and coerce them into a partnership in evil.

Additionally, the ruthless and cunning globalization elite (both Jew and Gentile) would have no problem throwing Jewry to the wolves, if it ever came to that, so perhaps certain Jews realize it's in their own long-term survival interests to end the partnership, as well. The question is, will enough of these resist the Siren lure of the dysfunctional aspects of their own culture long enough to free themselves from its cycle of destruction? Moreover, will enough Westerners themselves recognize how the warped globalist elite are manipulating and using us all, and using Jewry and Israel as their all-purpose ace in the hole?

...The Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll out today confirms that the nation that entertained such high hopes for Barack Obama has lost confidence in his capacity to lead.

Sixty-two percent of all Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction. For the first time, more Americans disapprove of Obama than approve. Fifty-seven percent would prefer someone else, rather than the member of Congress they now have.

Though green shoots have appeared in the economy, Americans no longer believe it. Only one-third thinks things will get better before they get worse again. Independents are deserting Obama. One in six Democrats now disapproves of the job he is doing.

Americans have been through periods of malaise before. But where FDR raised spirits after Herbert Hoover, and Reagan did after Jimmy Carter, the optimism about an Age of Obama is vanishing like the morning mist.

Disenchantment appears pervasive, and the causes apparent:

The Obama economic program — $800 billion in stimulus money piled on top of the Federal Reserve’s doubling the money supply, giving us two straight deficits of 10 percent of gross domestic product — has failed to ignite a robust recovery.

Unemployment still hovers just below 10 percent.

The two-month-old oil spill, where BP’s malfeasance was matched by government incompetence in preventing it from destroying the gulf ecology and economy from Louisiana to Florida, has cast a pall over America’s spirit as wide and deep as the oil slick itself.

The war in Afghanistan is not going well, casualties are running at a nine-year high, and the country no longer wants to fight it, but to get out and come home.

Obama’s “reset” in foreign policy seems to have yielded no more fruit than George W. Bush’s crusade to “end tyranny in our world.”...

America is facing a crisis of confidence in government, with the nation unable to win its wars, balance its budgets, control its borders, stop the bleeding of its manufacturing base or plug a hole in the ocean floor.

Should the sovereign debt bombs start going off, as they have lately threatened to do in Greece, bringing on another financial crisis to dwarf the one we have lately gone through, the crisis of democratic governments will become a crisis of democracy itself.

Perceived to have failed the country, the Bush Republicans were summarily dismissed in 2006 and 2008. Obama’s Democrats go to the wall in November. Republicans will inherit the windfall. Yet few harbor great hopes that the GOP has the cure for what ails America.

Obama’s lack of experience speaks for itself as proof that the man was thrust to the forefront of the Democratic Party by the Party elite because he could deliver a good speech and fit the “progressive” figurehead role to a "T". The elite knew he would have to dance on their strings because he wasn’t his own man, but a product of their intensive media and party hype, spin and P.R. He’s clearly serving the interests of the elitist globalist agenda (as was G.W. Bush), which draws from both the Left and the Right, and is inimical to American national interests. The globalization elite who run these guys don’t give a damn about this country, and it comes through crystal clear in their policies, which serve their own interests and damage the national interest.

It’s taken years, but today this hidden hand is finally showing up in spades, and can no longer be laughed off as “conspiracy theory.” Goldman Sachs, mortgage bubbles, BP, billions of public money disappearing into the pockets of Big Government and its cronies, getting lied into Middle Eastern wars…all are symptoms of a corrupt system and globalization class run amok, and corrupt mainstream media functionaries that are as elitist and contemptuous of average Americans as are those who own them.

Those who want to understand why America keeps spinning its wheels and gets nowhere need to understand this is by design; it IS inching its way towards the “vision” of the internationalist, bloodless elite, which is no less dystopian than the outcome of international Marxism. In fact, it’s a variation thereof, operating under a similar benign guise, but in reality serving the narrow interests of a self-serving, sociopathic elite. And while similarly utilizing a bullying Statism to ram through its agenda, it maintains the guise of "free enterprise" and "democracy" through "private" Corporatism -- which itself is an increasingly transparent public-private means of channeling society's resources to the globalization elite class.

Pat Buchanan and the paleocons opposed the Iraq war and the entire War on Terror from the get-go.

Now who’s crazier, the out of control “end of history,” war-pimping, globalization-at-gunpoint elite as epitomized by the Obamunists and the Bushcons, or the America-firster paleocons who want us to regain our sanity and tend our own gardens?

Reading the bizarre comments of Buchanan’s antagonists on his own site, I sometimes feel like I’ve fallen through the rabbit hole into some sort of alternative universe where war of aggression sociopaths are celebrated as benign moderates, and benign moderates are castigated as a threat to the peace. This is getting close to what it must have been like to live in the USSR.

A big question has been answered for those of us wondering why very few of the leaders of organizations fighting against illegal immigration are on Fox News anymore.

The last time I was on FOX was on Sunday morning at 8am. Before that, a little over a year ago I criticized John McCain's support for Amnesty and pointed out that the man countering my statements in support of immigration enforcement, Francisco Hernandez, was the brother of the open borders amnesty zealot Juan Hernandez who was serving as McCain's Hispanic Outreach Coordinator on McCain's Presidential campaign. I was only invited back once after that and the weekend staff that invited me probably got grilled out for having me on.

Nope, you will rarely if ever see me, Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, Dan Stein of FAIR, or any of the significant immigration enforcement and border security groups on Fox anymore.

You do see Carl Rove, Mike Huckabee, and US Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain on Fox all the time and each of them supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty for illegal immigrants that would turn illegal aliens into voters and thus destroy any peaceful political hope for future border or immigration enforcement in America.

So why have the Amnesty sellouts been given free reign at FOX NEWS with almost no significant representation for the organization leaders and elected officials that represent the 80% of Americans who want immigration and border enforcement instead of Amnesty?

It appears we have our answer as the Associated Press is reporting today (June 24, 2010) in their article titled 'NYC mayor, major CEOs lobby for immigration reform' that FOX NEWS and News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch has appeared with the billionaire liberal mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, to ask lawmakers in Washington to pass Amnesty.

The article reports Murdoch saying "We're just going to keep the pressure on the congressmen/ I think we can show to the public the benefits of having migrants and the jobs that go with them." Bloomberg added, "Somebody has to lead and explain to the country why this is in our interest."

Well, at least we now have a fairly clear explanation to help us understand how turncoat Lou Dobbs was able to betray us all by supporting Amnesty for illegal aliens after wrongfully convincing us he stood with Americans against such things and then walk into Bill Oreilly's 'No Spin Zone' without being questioned about his conversion. In fact, Oreilly and Dobbs both sat there and agreed that Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty was going to have to be done.

I guess we won't get to see Glenn Beck crying in front of a blackboard about America's future inability to stop illegal immigration or corporations from treating this whole nation like a private playground.

Of course this is the 'Secure The Borders First' crowd which is a clear giveaway code for those that are pretending to be Conservatives or Republicans while serving the financial interests that are responsible for this plan to flood America with illegal aliens. It translates into 'Secure The Borders long enough to pacify Americans enough to get them to swallow Comprehensive Amnesty' After America drinks that poison, there will be no future need to appease Americans because a new block of over 15 million illegal aliens turned into voters will be in position.

So we get Bill Oreilly and Lou Dobbs telling us that we must legalize millions of illegal aliens in America, architects of the plan that opened our borders wide open during the Bush administration like Carl Rove, and agents of the Globalists pushing this continental economic union plan like Francisco Hernandez and Mike Huckabee but no opposition from our camp allowed on FOX.

Fox News now joins MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and ABC in their censorship and bias pushing for Amnesty for illegal aliens. The American public is now completely cut off from any national media avenues to represent their interests over the billionaires on the left and the right pushing to destroy our borders and sovereignty... MORE...LINK

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

American discussions about what causes Terrorists to do what they do are typically conducted by ignoring the Terrorist's explanation for why he does what he does. Yesterday, Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty in a New York federal court to attempting to detonate a car bomb in Times Square, and this Pakistani-American Muslim explained why he transformed from a financial analyst living a law-abiding, middle-class American life into a Terrorist:

If the United States does not get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries controlled by Muslims, he said, "we will be attacking U.S.," adding that Americans "only care about their people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die" . . . .

As soon as he was taken into custody May 3 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, onboard a flight to Dubai, the Pakistani-born Shahzad told agents that he was motivated by opposition to U.S. policy in the Muslim world, officials said.

"One of the first things he said was, 'How would you feel if people attacked the United States? You are attacking a sovereign Pakistan'," said one law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the interrogation reports are not public. "In the first two hours, he was talking about his desire to strike a blow against the United States for the cause."

When the federal Judge presiding over his case asked him why he would be willing to kill civilians who have nothing to do with those actions, he replied: "Well, the people select the government. We consider them all the same" (the same rationale used to justify the punishment of the people of Gaza for electing Hamas). When the Judge interrupted him to ask whether that includes children who might have been killed by the bomb he planted and whether he first looked around to see if there were children nearby, Shahzad replied:

Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It's a war, and in war, they kill people. They're killing all Muslims. . . .

I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. And, on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their own people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die.

Those statements are consistent with a decade's worth of emails and other private communications from Shahzad, as he railed with increasing fury against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, drone attacks, Israeli violence against Palestinians and Muslims generally, Guantanamo and torture, and asked: "Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows?"

This proves only what it proves. The issue here is causation, not justification. The great contradiction of American foreign policy is that the very actions endlessly rationalized as necessary for combating Terrorism -- invading, occupying and bombing other countries, limitless interference in the Muslim world, unconditional support for Israeli aggression, vast civil liberties abridgments such as torture, renditions, due-process-free imprisonments -- are the very actions that fuel the anti-American hatred which, as the U.S. Government itself has long recognized, is what causes, fuels and exacerbates the Terrorism we're ostensibly attempting to address.

It's really quite simple: if we continue to bring violence to that part of the world, then that part of the world -- and those who sympathize with it -- will continue to want to bring violence to the U.S...MORE...LINK

In confiding to Rolling Stone their unflattering opinions of the military acumen of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones, Dick Holbrooke and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff were guilty of colossal stupidity.

And President Obama had cause to cashier them. Yet his decision to fire McChrystal may prove both unwise and costly.

For McChrystal, unlike Gen. MacArthur, never challenged the war policy — he is carrying it out — and Barack Obama is no Harry Truman.

Moreover, the war strategy Obama is pursuing is the McChrystal Plan, devised by the general and being implemented by the general in Marja and Kandahar, perhaps the decisive campaign of the war.

Should that plan now fail, full responsibility falls on Obama.

He has made the Afghan war his war in a way it never was before.

If the McChrystal strategy fails, critics will charge Obama with causing the defeat by firing the best fighting general in the Army out of pique over some officers-club remarks that bruised the egos of West Wing warriors.

And though those remarks never should have appeared in print, they may well reflect the sentiments of not a few soldiers and Marine officers on third and fourth tours of duty in the Afghan theater.

Had Obama, instead of firing McChrystal, told him to shut up, can the interviews and go back to fighting the war until the December review of strategy, he could have shown those soldiers he is a bigger man than they or McChrystal’s team give him credit for.

And if success in Afghanistan is the highest goal, how does it help to fire the best fighting general? Do you relieve Gen. Patton during combat because he vents his prejudices or opinions?...MORE...LINK-------------------------

Buchanan: “If the McChrystal strategy fails, critics will charge Obama with causing the defeat by firing the best fighting general in the Army out of pique over some officers-club remarks that bruised the egos of West Wing warriors. And though those remarks never should have appeared in print, they may well reflect the sentiments of not a few soldiers and Marine officers on third and fourth tours of duty in the Afghan theater.”

Chris Moore comments:

One can certainly understand the resentments building up in the military against the limousine liberals and the chickenhawk neocon/Bushcon elite who seem to enjoy playing toy soldier between visits to the golf course and the Wednesday night White House parties. Compound that with utterly inept and arrogant U.S. diplomacy with the Arab and Islamic world that makes their fighting job nearly impossible, a Congress that dances to the tune of the Israel lobby, and a Pentagon working hand in glove with the military-industrial complex, and one can easily see why those actually fighting the battles might resent the armchair warriors who like to talk tough for the cameras with all the certitude of Hollywood actors playing action hero as they deploy others off to the war zone, but who in real life hardly ever leave the comforts of their plush offices, country clubs and estates.

One would think “the suits” would cut them a little slack, but the suits have confused themselves with Masters of the Universe who think the U.S. Military is their play thing, and exists to validate and enforce their half-baked, Ivy League, globalization ideologies.

In a recent town hall video posted by an Arizona ResistNet member, Senator Jon Kyle (R-Ariz) is shown stating that the Federal government is refusing to secure the southern border from illegal immigration as a tool to force lawmakers to support amnesty for illegal immigrants. During a discussion in the Oval office between the Senator and Barak Obama, the president reportedly said:

“The problem is; if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

In essence, Senator Kyle asserts that the administration is refusing to secure our borders, as is constitutionally mandated, until congress passes amnesty for illegal immigrants.

There is a word for this – Blackmail.

Yesterday, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer denied the allegation, telling ABC News “The President didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it, there are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the President has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.” Throwing more money at the problem hasn’t been a solution so we want to throw more laws at it instead.

A Kyl spokesman said the senator stood by his account, which is "about as straight forward as you can get."

There is an emerging pattern here. In a previous article, I pointed out that the Obama administration is using the Gulf oil spill to further his ‘Cap and Trade’ agenda in much the same way. No ‘Cap and Trade', no stopping the flow of oil.

This, also, is blackmail. Blackmail is the grist of the Chicago political meat grinder and has no place in a nation governed by the rule of law. As I pointed out here, we are no longer a nation of laws, rather we are more and more falling under the rule of men. Men like Barak Obama...LINK

Even in the context of America's wretched civil liberties abuses over the last decade, the case of Mohamed Hassan Odaini stands out. He was 17 years old in 2001 when his father sent him from Yemen to study at a religious university in Raiwand, Pakistan, and when a campus house in which he was staying there was raided by Pakistani authorities in early 2002, he was turned over to the U.S. and shipped to Guantanamo, where he has remained without charges for the last eight years (he's now 26). A federal court this month granted his habeas petition for release, finding that the evidence "overwhelmingly supports Odaini's contention that he is unlawfully detained." Worse, the court described the multiple times over the years -- beginning in 2002 and occurring as recently as 2009 -- when the U.S. Government itself concluded that Odaini was guilty of nothing, was mistakenly detained, and should be released (see here for the court's description of that history).

Despite that, the Obama administration has refused to release him for the past 16 months, and fought vehemently in this habeas proceeding to keep him imprisoned. As the court put it, the Obama DOJ argued "vehemently" that there was evidence that Odaini was part of Al Qaeda. In fact, the Obama administration knew this was false. This Washington Post article this weekend quotes an "administration official" as saying: "The bottom line is: We don't have anything on this kid." But after Obama decreed in January that no Yemeni detainees would be released -- even completely innocent ones, and even though the Yemeni government wants their innocent prisoners returned -- Obama DOJ lawyers basically lied to the court by claiming there was substantial evidence to prove that Odaini was part of Al Qaeda even though they know that is false. In other words, the Obama administration is knowingly imprisoning a completely innocent human being who has been kept in a cage in an island prison, thousands of miles from his home, for the last 8 years, since he's 18 years old, despite having done absolutely nothing wrong.

It really is hard to imagine many things worse, more criminal, than imprisoning people for years whom you know are innocent, while fighting in court to keep them imprisoned. But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing. Every day that Odiani is kept in a cage is a serious crime...

Of course, none of this is new for the Obama administration; it's consistent with their course of conduct from the start. I highlight this today only because there is an obvious, concerted effort by a slew of Democratic Beltway pundits over the last month or so to attack the so-called "Left" for daring to express displeasure with the Obama administration, and to demonize those objections as unserious, shrill, irrational, purist and all the other clichés long used by this same cadre of party apparatchiks for the same purpose. This is all coming from a homogeneous clique of Democratic Party pundits who have strikingly similar demographics and background, most of whom supported the Iraq War, and who spend a great deal of time talking to one another in public and private and reinforcing their talking point platitudes, and have spent years railing against the Left. Just look at who is purporting to lecture liberals on how to promote progressive goals.

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait -- vocal Iraq War cheerleader (from a safe distance) who works for a magazine whose declared editorial mission is to have Joe Lieberman's worldview "once again guide the Democratic Party" -- has written yet another lecture chiding liberals for unfair and irrational discontent with his beloved leader. Peter Connolly -- a D.C. lobbyist and telecom lawyer for Holland & Knight -- published a screed this weekend at The Huffington Post condemning progressives who are mounting primary challenges against conservative Democratic incumbents for creating a terribly unjustified "civil war" in the Democratic Party, which, after all, is led by what he called that "unabashed liberal" Barack Obama. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter -- the first known mainstream pundit to explicitly call for torture in the wake of the 9/11 attack and one of the creepiest Obama loyalists around -- has been running around the country promoting his book by spouting "the typical warmed over Village sentiments, particularly as it relates to liberal critics of the President."

Lanny Davis published a column this weekend arguing that "the Left" is a threat to good Democratic principles and that Obama should "Sister Souljah" progressives who are criticizing him. The New York Times' conservative columnist Ross Douthat even adopts their script today by pronouncing liberal disenchantment with Obama to be "bizarrely disproportionate" and grounded in unrealistic expectations of Obama. And a whole slew of other, similar Obama-defending Democratic Party loyalists (Jon Chait, Ezra Klein, Jonathan Bernstein) -- for whom the excuses of "not-enough-time-yet" and "Pragmatism" are now dry wells -- have together invented a new one: none of this is Obama's fault because the Presidency is so weak and powerless (though Klein, to his credit, accurately acknowledges that that excuse is "less true on foreign policy than on domestic policy").

So the homogeneous Party loyalists who cheered for Bush's invasion of Iraq, who spend their time privately railing together against those misguided liberal critics, have all magically come forward in unison, with the same script, to decree that The Left's discontent with the President is so terribly shrill, unrealistic, unfair, and unSerious. The same trite pundits who reflexively ingest and advocate whatever the political establishment spits out are announcing that criticisms of the President are so unfair. Jon Chait, Jon Bernstein, Jon Alter, Lanny Davis, Peter Connolly, Ross Douthat and friends know what good Progressives must do -- with their track record, who could possibly disagree? -- and that's be grateful for the President we have and to refrain from all this chattering, irrational, purist negativity. Meanwhile, the administration does one thing after the next along the lines of what it's doing to Mohamed Hassan Odaini, rendering these You-Leftists-are-so-UnSerious sermons no more impressive or worthwhile than when the same unfailingly wrong establishment spokespeople, driven by exactly the same mentality, were spouting them back in 2003.

UPDATE: For a classic expression of the Unserious-Liberals-Must-Stop-Criticizing-Obama mindset, see this TPM post from Theda Skocpal last week, arguing that "liberal pundits [on MSNBC and The Huffington Post] are making absolute fools of themselves bashing Obama over the Gulf spill" and decreeing that "Liberals right now should not be joining in Obama bashing on the oil spill." That's because "If liberals do not support Obama and the Democrats for the next two election cycles, a rabid Right will be back in control" (h/t doosra).

Democratic apparatchiks now use the Scary Spectre of Sarah Palin the way GOP apparatchiks long used The Terrorist: you better stay in line and not dissent or else that scary right-wing/Terrorist monster hiding under your bed will get you! Apparently, we're all supposed to just smile and remain silent no matter what the U.S. Government does -- imprison innocent people, target citizens for assassinations, serve the corporate factions that own the Congress -- lest the Democratic Party be politically weakened by debate, dissent, and critiques (just like we were all supposed to smile and remain silent lest the U.S. and the Bush Presidency be weakened by debate, dissent, and critiques [and that refusal of Republicans to criticize their leader from 2001-2008, due to Party loyalty, worked out so very well for them, didn't it?]). Apparently, our overarching duty as citizens is to work to strengthen the Democratic Party leadership, no matter what it does...MORE...LINK-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Gee, I wonder what Greenwald could be refering to in his statement on "a homogeneous clique of Democratic Party pundits who have strikingly similar demographics and background, most of whom supported the Iraq War" with reference to Ezra Klein, Jonathan Alter, Lanny Davis and Jonathan Chait? Well, let's see. All are Jewish, all are Zionists, and all are neoliberal warmongers to varying degrees.

Now does that make Greenwald an anti-Semite, or does that make treasonous, authoritarian, Israel-first Jewish Zionist neoliberals the left-liberal equivalent of treasonous, authoritarian, Israel-first Jewish Zionist neocons?

The packaging may change, but the anti-American, anti-democratic, Statist-Corporatist juggernaut -- and the Zionist identification of its most treacherous and treasonous advocates and enablers -- remains the same.

When America wants to get serous about its patriotism, and about identifying and holding accountable those who have betrayed her, the first trail of evidence they will follow is to the doors of the Israel-firsters and those whom they are in bed with. Until Americans do this, nothing will change.

Perhaps one of the amazing things about the bailouts of large banks and financial institutions in the fall of 2008 is that the bailouts were not really a contentious point among candidates during the fall campaign, largely because the heads of both party tickets, Barack Obama and John McCain, supported them.

But two years later the bailouts have become an issue, at least among Republican primary voters, and a good example of this is taking place today in South Carolina, where two GOP congressmen, Bob Inglis running for re-election and Gresham Barrett running for governor, are seeing their votes for the bailouts used like a club against them in primary runoffs. Indeed, if they both lose, the bailouts will be the main reason.

One would have thought the idea of the little guy, the average Joe and Jane taxpayer, paying off the debts of institutions like J.P. Morgan or General Motors would have aroused the passions of the Left, yet it is on the Right that this has happened. Part of this is due to Obama’s election creating a populist vacuum on the Left as everyone was into hope and change. But one can argue that the main catalyst for creating the Tea Party movement, aside from a rant about mortgages, was the bailouts and not, as some would have you believe, excessive government spending. The Tea Partiers are far from united on that point. But what they almost all agree on is the feds had no business trying to save large financial institutions that brought about their own demise through bad loans, bad mortgages, and derivatives trading. Doing so was a deep betrayal of everything these Main Street Americans believed in — a betrayal of their values by their so-called leaders and the political party they supported. Thus the outrage and sense of wanting to do something about it was ready to be lit into flame.

That flame has burned up several GOP incumbents either running for re-election like Sen. Bob Bennett or Rep. Parker Griffith or running for other office like Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (others have survived, but their bailout votes certainly encouraged primary contests they hadn’t expected). It would have zapped Sen. Arlen Specter if he stayed in the GOP. It may very well engulf Sen. John McCain in his primary battle with former Congressman J.D. Hayworth.

The sad thing is, Inglis was a Republican who at least had some reflective capacity of what went wrong with the party during the last decade. Much like fellow Rep. Walter Jones Jr. of neighboring North Carolina, he voted against the “surge” in Iraq in 2007. Unlike other Republican politicians, he’s not intimidated or a blind follower of the voices and the money of Conservative Inc. But the party loyalty and loyalty to the president which caused the GOP to fall out of power in 2006 and 2008 is still claiming victims in 2010. Many Republicans cast a vote against their better judgment, and they’re paying for it. Retrospective is a nice quality compared to the willful blindness so many on the Right have about the past. The problem is, right-thinking and regret amidst the ruins do not appeal to voters...LINK